Prez wrote on Nov 6, 2013, 08:21:He apparently has been doing some revisionist history after I wrote him off forever but as Creston says it was only because he was flooded with hate mail, and rightly so. All the anti-DRM editorials in the world can't change his history. He wrote it and he is an asshole.

Jim was working for a game review site and game review sites universally suck corporate dick of their advertisers. He was driving outrage to get clicks. That's how news works on the internet purposely being a dick to get clicks. That article was just bait. No one should expect anything from 'games journalists'. Either he's faking trying to get clicks, he was badmouthing pc games just for shits and giggles or he's had a change of heart and realized the superiority of PC gaming because of all the cool shit you can do with skyrim and other games /w mods.

Ray Marden wrote on Nov 5, 2013, 17:51:Jim obviously isn't for everybody, but he's generally been against DRM and the political games of the publishers. I'm not aware of any hatred of PC gamers...Unlike many publishers.Piracy - Trying To Kill It Makes It Stronger

He apparently has been doing some revisionist history after I wrote him off forever but as Creston says it was only because he was flooded with hate mail, and rightly so. All the anti-DRM editorials in the world can't change his history. He wrote it and he is an asshole.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Jim gets on my nerves at times, which is why I love to watch Yahtzee pwn him thoroughly in every 'Rymedown Spectacular'...Angry Joe is a fucking riot, especially when he reviews the really bad shit, like Ride to Hell and Sonic Free Riders...

=-Rigs-=

So full of hate were our eyes, that none of us could see our war would yield countless dead, but never victory. So let us cast arms aside, and like discard our wrath. Thou, in faith, will keep us safe. Whilst we find The Path. - Halo:Contact Harvest

Jim obviously isn't for everybody, but he's generally been against DRM and the political games of the publishers. I'm not aware of any hatred of PC gamers...Unlike many publishers.Piracy - Trying To Kill It Makes It Stronger

And why wouldn't you? Everything Jim says in that particular video is spot on. There is no game journalism. It's nothing but glorified advertising. Microsoft's embargo on the Call of Duty resolution thing is just plain retarded.

So then Jim Sterling is telling us not to listen to him because he is a paid advertiser not a journalist? Finally he says something I can agree with!

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Beamer wrote on Nov 5, 2013, 13:47:3) Combining these, games are both expensive and time consuming. Most reviewers need free copies. And they need a copy before release. All of this relies upon the publisher getting it to them. But if it's someone that repeatedly gives ultra-negative reviews, which people working on a project almost definitely feel is unfair, why would they keep providing that critic with these perks?

And why does said critic require free copies? Buy your own damn copies. Most large websites make enough money to do so. If you get your review copies for free, and swag for free, and because of that you let it influence your score, you are not a 'journalist'. You are a fucking corporate mouthpiece.

Funny enough, I think the only guy that might make claim on the title of journalist would be Angry Joe, since he buys his games himself. (and properly shreds them to shit if they are shit.)

We've all said this here a billion times1) Unlike most other industries, game critics are financed almost solely by game companies. There's inherent bias there, even if everyone is doing something totally transparently and properly2) And, unlike many industries, games tend to be time consuming. This makes it hard for a small org to cover everything thoroughly, and more importantly, means that games tend to go to reviewers that like those games. FPS go to the FPS nut. In some ways this is good, in some ways this results to inflated scores3) Combining these, games are both expensive and time consuming. Most reviewers need free copies. And they need a copy before release. All of this relies upon the publisher getting it to them. But if it's someone that repeatedly gives ultra-negative reviews, which people working on a project almost definitely feel is unfair, why would they keep providing that critic with these perks? It's just human to try to prevent something you created from being treated in a way you feel is unfair, and to also somewhat warp your opinion of fair and unfair

All you can do is read between the lines, so to speak, and go on word of mouth. Pay attention to what reviewers like or dislike, not the final rating. But, frankly, I don't think most reviewers are bad these days. Everyone hates IGN, but I find them mostly thorough and mostly fine. Just assume they're within ~20%.

And why wouldn't you? Everything Jim says in that particular video is spot on. There is no game journalism. It's nothing but glorified advertising. Microsoft's embargo on the Call of Duty resolution thing is just plain retarded.